Comparing Stochastic Training Environments for Deep Reinforcement Learning with Deep Q-network: Learning Stability and Transfer to Real Data

Authors

  • Yuriy Yurchenko National Technical University «Kharkiv Polytechnic Institute», Department of Computer Engineering and Programming Author
  • Dr. Olexandr Zakovorotnyi Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.66901/q1d2dq55

Keywords:

neural network; modeling theory; model synthesis; mathematical model; deep reinforcement learning; deep Q-network (DQN); stochastic environment modeling; sim-to-real transfer; training stability

Abstract

The paper investigates how the choice of a generative stochastic model of the training environment affects the numerical stability of the learning and the transfer of the Double DQN policy to real time series. Four environments — GBM, GARCH(1,1)-t, Minimal Neural SDE, and Neural Jump-Diffusion — are compared, created on chronologically previous data of three financial time series: NVDA, SPY, and KO. For each combination of asset and environment, ten training runs are performed, a total of 120, with the architecture, state and action spaces, reward functions, and hyperparameters unchanged. The transfer was evaluated on a 250-day chronologically separated real window. Differences were found between the environments in all groups of indicators studied. Training in the GARCH environment was accompanied by the largest temporal-difference error and the largest gradient norms, but at the same time the smallest discrepancy of state space ranges and the lowest turnover on all three assets. In the Double DQN configuration used with Huber loss function and gradient clipping, no numerical divergence of estimates was observed in 120 runs; at the same time, the positive bias of Q-scores was preserved in all twelve asset–environment combinations. . In 14 of the 120 runs, the trained agent outperformed the corresponding fixed-allocation baseline selected on synthetic validation data. Agents generally held a larger share of capital in the asset when trained in environments with higher drift, although this pattern was not consistent across all assets. The obtained results characterize the engineering interaction between the generative environment and the DQN agent, but do not indicate the superiority of agents over passive deterministic control bases.

Author Biography

  • Dr. Olexandr Zakovorotnyi
    Position: Head of the Department of Computer Engineering and Programming Academic degree: Doctor of Engineering Sciences, 05.13.07 - automation of management processes Dissertation topic: «Synthesis of an automated rolling stock control system based on geometric control theory and neural networks» Scientific title: Professor of the Department of Computer Engineering and Programming  

References

[1] N. Pippas, E.A. Ludvig, C. Turkay, The evolution of reinforcement learning in quantitative finance: a survey, ACM Computing Surveys (2025). https://doi.org/10.1145/3733714.

[2] Mnih V., Kavukcuoglu K., Silver D. et al. Human-level control through deep reinforcement learning. Nature. 2015. Vol. 518, № 7540. P. 529–533. doi: 10.1038/nature14236.

[3] Yao, Z., Li, Z., Thomas, M., & Florescu, I. (2024). Reinforcement Learning in Agent-Based Market Simulation: Unveiling Realistic Stylized Facts and Behavior. 2024 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN). https://doi.org/10.1109/IJCNN60899.2024.10650035

[4] R. Cont, Empirical properties of asset returns: stylized facts and statistical issues, Quantitative Finance 1(2) (2001) 223–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/713665670

[5] E. Ratliff-Crain, C.M. Van Oort, M.T.K. Koehler, B.F. Tivnan, Revisiting Cont's stylized facts for modern stock markets, Quantitative Finance 25(9) (2025) 1343–1373. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697688.2025.2530637.

[6] van Hasselt, H., Guez, A., & Silver, D. (2016). Deep Reinforcement Learning with Double Q-Learning. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 30(1), 2094–2100. https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v30i1.10295

[7] Henderson, P., Islam, R., Bachman, P., Pineau, J., Precup, D., & Meger, D. (2018). Deep Reinforcement Learning That Matters. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 32(1), 3207–3214. https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v32i1.11694

[8] Cobbe, K., Klimov, O., Hesse, C., Kim, T., & Schulman, J. (2019). Quantifying Generalization in Reinforcement Learning. Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Machine Learning, PMLR 97, 1282–1289. https://proceedings.mlr.press/v97/cobbe19a.html

[9] Liu, X.-Y., Xia, Z., Rui, J., Gao, J., Yang, H., Zhu, M., Wang, C.D., Wang, Z., & Guo, J. (2022). FinRL-Meta: Market Environments and Benchmarks for Data-Driven Financial Reinforcement Learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35, 1835–1849. https://doi.org/10.52202/068431-0134

[10] Yurchenko, Yu. V., & Zakovorotnyi, O. Yu. (2026). Stokhastychne modeliuvannia finansovykh chasovykh riadiv: vid heometrychnoho brounivskoho rukhu do neironnoi dyfuziino-strybkovoi modeli [Stochastic modeling of financial time series: from geometric Brownian motion to a neural diffusion-jump model]. In M. Hladka, O. Bondarenko, M. Kostikov, & I. Borysenko (Eds.), Informatsiini systemy ta tekhnolohii: rezultaty i perspektyvy (IST 2026): materialy 3-i Mizhnar. nauk.-prakt. konf. (pp. 397–401). FIT KNUTSH. https://repository.kpi.kharkov.ua/entities/publication/0c1dc1ed-9217-42f6-b8a8-64e417d910ef

[11] Agarwal, R., Schwarzer, M., Castro, P. S., Courville, A., & Bellemare, M. G. (2021). Deep Reinforcement Learning at the Edge of the Statistical Precipice. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34, 29304–29320. Official NeurIPS publication. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2108.13264

[12] Dulac-Arnold, G., Levine, N., Mankowitz, D. J., et al. (2021). Challenges of real-world reinforcement learning: definitions, benchmarks and analysis. Machine Learning, 110, 2419–2468. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10994-021-05961-4

Published

2026-10-11